"Hope and Change" are just words

[chance1]

No, I won't, i'll just vote in local elections. i don't care really who wins, it doesn't matter who wins to me.

dude - watch the debates - it's your first election right? sort of a big deal

it's cool to think both are flawed but try to find out more

you're making ME depressed

and we can't have that

 

[stevexxx]

dude - watch the debates - it's your first election right? sort of a big deal

it's cool to think both are flawed but try to find out more

you're making ME depressed

and we can't have that

lol don't be depressed, it's just Obama's first term he did nothing except the healthcare bill and kill Osama. we still have a high unemployment rate and his economic plan has been a joke. the only thing he has going for him is the "middle" class tax cuts. People are reacting like, "mmmmhmmm mo' money mo' money, iz all bout dat free money, imma vote for Obama". We don't know how much the tax cuts are going to go down for the middle class, for all we know it's probably a lousy 2% decrease. This shitty campaign has become a "tax" debate who pays taxes and who doesn't? no one NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER speaks about the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE. the fundamental change is with less taxes being collected the government cannot be providing the same level of services that being from local governments to the federal government. our local governments are going broke, and so is the federal government. thats the discussion we need to have. instead the public is sooooo stupid and not informed that the campaigns are narrowing this into only one topic of taxes because the campaigns have no real solutions nor plans to fix the economy and sustain the debt.

 

[rareboy]

^
Chance is stuck in the "us v/or them" framework, where if we're not on to of everything, we must be secondary, and if we're not stomping heads regularly, we're weak.

Oh God. It plays out every day with him on this forum. There can't be many posters left here who aren't the enemy.

I would add that the rest of the world doesn't approve of Obama because it makes the US look weak. Quite the contrary. Unlike Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, who exposed how incredibly weak and ineffectual the US could be at playing at war when it thought that arrogance and bombing would win the hearts and guts of the middle east, the world has been sleeping a lot more soundly these past four years knowing that ObamaCo. has a much more multi-lateral view of the world and a much more sophisticated idea of RealPolitick.

Only those with an incredibly stupid and shallow perspective on the world think that the wild west Halliburton gun slinging approach is a realistic or reasonable way to deal with regions of the world that are not even fully emerged from tribal, medieval mindsets and culture.

I think that the US has reached the same place as Great Britain did by the early 20th century.

It can regain all the stature it had before 2000 and be a worthy leader, or it can cede this by rending itself in two with petty party politics, by allowing the multi-nationals to gut the economy and allowing the religious right to waltz the world toward the Armageddon that they crave so much. This, incidentally, is what makes the US look weak to much of the rest of the world today and much of it has been the result of an ineffectual and obstructionist Congress playing for time and declaring that their only goal is to have a one term president. The real restoration of global confidence will only happen by having a two term President and a Legislative Branch that is prepared to buckle down and govern in a way that will serve the interests of the greatest number of citizens and not the narrow interests of the men who have come to expect that government is just another thing for them to buy.

 

[Rolyo85]

Oh God. It plays out every day with him on this forum. There can't be many posters left here who aren't the enemy.

I would add that the rest of the world doesn't approve of Obama because it makes the US look weak. Quite the contrary. Unlike Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, who exposed how incredibly weak and ineffectual the US could be at playing at war when it thought that arrogance and bombing would win the hearts and guts of the middle east, the world has been sleeping a lot more soundly these past four years knowing that ObamaCo. has a much more multi-lateral view of the world and a much more sophisticated idea of RealPolitick.

Only those with an incredibly stupid and shallow perspective on the world think that the wild west Halliburton gun slinging approach is a realistic or reasonable way to deal with regions of the world that are not even fully emerged from tribal, medieval mindsets and culture.

I think that the US has reached the same place as Great Britain did by the early 20th century.

It can regain all the stature it had before 2000 and be a worthy leader, or it can cede this by rending itself in two with petty party politics, by allowing the multi-nationals to gut the economy and allowing the religious right to waltz the world toward the Armageddon that they crave so much. This, incidentally, is what makes the US look weak to much of the rest of the world today and much of it has been the result of an ineffectual and obstructionist Congress playing for time and declaring that their only goal is to have a one term president. The real restoration of global confidence will only happen by having a two term President and a Legislative Branch that is prepared to buckle down and govern in a way that will serve the interests of the greatest number of citizens and not the narrow interests of the men who have come to expect that government is just another thing for them to buy.

Very well said

 

[chance1]

Oh God. It plays out every day with him on this forum. There can't be many posters left here who aren't the enemy.

I would add that the rest of the world doesn't approve of Obama because it makes the US look weak. Quite the contrary. Unlike Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, who exposed how incredibly weak and ineffectual the US could be at playing at war when it thought that arrogance and bombing would win the hearts and guts of the middle east, the world has been sleeping a lot more soundly these past four years knowing that ObamaCo. has a much more multi-lateral view of the world and a much more sophisticated idea of RealPolitick.

Only those with an incredibly stupid and shallow perspective on the world think that the wild west Halliburton gun slinging approach is a realistic or reasonable way to deal with regions of the world that are not even fully emerged from tribal, medieval mindsets and culture.

I think that the US has reached the same place as Great Britain did by the early 20th century.

It can regain all the stature it had before 2000 and be a worthy leader, or it can cede this by rending itself in two with petty party politics, by allowing the multi-nationals to gut the economy and allowing the religious right to waltz the world toward the Armageddon that they crave so much. This, incidentally, is what makes the US look weak to much of the rest of the world today and much of it has been the result of an ineffectual and obstructionist Congress playing for time and declaring that their only goal is to have a one term president. The real restoration of global confidence will only happen by having a two term President and a Legislative Branch that is prepared to buckle down and govern in a way that will serve the interests of the greatest number of citizens and not the narrow interests of the men who have come to expect that government is just another thing for them to buy.

another soapbox speech by a canadian who's far too interested in american politics or rather making america like canada

and comparing and contrasting to canada with the u.s. always getting the short end of the stick

no one in the u.s. aspires to be canada

earth to rareboy

and kuli's post was NOT about me and other posters but rather the u.s vs. other countries

try to keep up and don't forget the wrinkle cream to remove the permanent frown

 

[Stardreamer]

As a 20 year old, I look at it like this.....which candidate is the lesser of the two evils? Obama wants to spend money and Romney wants you to pay more money (taxes). As a college student they don't speak about financial aid and the real problem with the debt of financial aid nor changes into the fundamental challenges of it. Same candidate different party. Whoever wins, will not get anything done anyway and bitch at the other party for not getting their agenda through. Same horse shit.

(Laughs) that is why I'm voting Libertarian, they aren't going to win but at least I'll feel better about it.

 

[portchar1908]

wow, we really must be out of important things to toss around. slogans --- their meaning, their importance = ZERO to anyone and certainly don't drive policy.

Everyong seems surprised at the awful (and yes awful) mud slinging going on -- that's what the polictical system has evolved into -- who can out spend, tell the biggest lie, distort the most miniscule statement into some complex conspiracy, on an on. The only ones that should be surprised are those entering this process for the first time.

The rest of you, hang up your phony drama tears. boo hoo hoo. give me a break. man up -- it's presidential election time.

but just remember this fact -- the republicans are the biggest cheats and liars.

 

[stevexxx]

Obama has done a lot more then you are giving credit for, including long term credit and financial reform.

What the fuck has Obama done so far?

You can get a whole list of what he has done. His economic plan is no joke. It's quite real and honest.

Wall Street Reform: A Summary of What's In the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

This is one of the first things that pops-up. It has a lot to do with financial and credit reform that will effect all of us. Fundamental change may not have happened, but many of these things will indeed effect a lot of us in the long term. Fundamental change cannot happen when the republicans act like obstructionists.

You don't give the president enough credit for things he has done. And many of those reforms prevented this country from sliding into even a deeper recession. I am absolutely serious.

As i said before, he may have accomplished "more" than i credit him but what did he do for me? grants and financial aid is being cut. And the sad thing is Mitt Romney is a joke. To me, he looks like a used car salesmen that wants to sell you a used call that's a lemon. no thank you

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

As i said before, he may have accomplished "more" than i credit him but what did he do for me?

You gotta LOVE the entitled facebook generation...

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Andy, there is hope in you after all, lol.

 

[Kulindahr]

good - no very good ad on the Hope & Change theme

Has Pres. Obama EARNED your vote ??

A pro-corparatist organization wanting you to vote for a corporatist -- what a surprise. And they managed to dig out some ill-informed people to try to sell us their bill of goods.

As a 20 year old, I look at it like this.....which candidate is the lesser of the two evils? Obama wants to spend money and Romney wants you to pay more money (taxes). As a college student they don't speak about financial aid and the real problem with the debt of financial aid nor changes into the fundamental challenges of it. Same candidate different party. Whoever wins, will not get anything done anyway and bitch at the other party for not getting their agenda through. Same horse shit.

Obama has been trying to decrease the deficit. He's even taken proposals from the Republican book to do so, but the Republicans stop them because nothing matters to them except stopping Obama.

 

[Kulindahr]

As i said before, he may have accomplished "more" than i credit him but what did he do for me? grants and financial aid is being cut. And the sad thing is Mitt Romney is a joke. To me, he looks like a used car salesmen that wants to sell you a used call that's a lemon. no thank you

So you're just one more who thinks that government exists to give you freebies?

What happened to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

 

[rareboy]

^ For 99% of the population, all government is to them is entitlements. And no matter what branch of the redemopublicrat party is in power, everyone looks at it as a way to get some of that federal cash coming their way, either directly in their pocket or in the form of government contracts and project funding for their community.

So there you go. At least someone is honest enough to make it clear that the person who gives them the most money gets their vote.

Forget about everything else.

 

[bankside]

For 51% all government is to them is taxes. For 49% it's only entitlements. The numbers reverse every few years.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ For 99% of the population, all government is to them is entitlements. And no matter what branch of the redemopublicrat party is in power, everyone looks at it as a way to get some of that federal cash coming their way, either directly in their pocket or in the form of government contracts and project funding for their community.

So there you go. At least someone is honest enough to make it clear that the person who gives them the most money gets their vote.

Forget about everything else.

Most of the people I know see government as a meddling nuisance that causes more problems than any good it does. Here, the federal government causes floods, promotes disease, cripples the economy, and opposes government of the people, by the people, and for the people. State government works to keep housing too expensive for most people and to deny the public the use of public lands and resources. Local government is shackled by the state and federal bureaucracy above them.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

What happened to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

WHATEVER, that was said like, before he was even BORN (and we ALL know nothing of importance EVER happened prior to our entrance into the world....d'uuuuuhhh!)

 

[MystikWizard]

During election years people regularly expect the candidates to be God, just as far too many Americans expect the government to be like God -- and thus the Libertarian Party's objection to "the cult of the omnipotent State".

I think that mentality is a result of three things:

1) American public's complete ignorance to the functions and responsibilities of each of our three branches of government ... confusing the President's responsibilities with those of the Legislative Branch

2) .... which is a mentality furthered by the media in portraying the president as being capable of making his own laws

3) .... which #1 is also furthered by the candidates themselves acting as though they can bypass the Legislative Branch and make their own laws.

This is frankly insanity, and I have no idea why this idiotic charade/illusion still continues to this day.

The President only makes a difference when one party controls both Houses of Congress, and has a supermajority in the Senate. Only then does his influence really matter as he can help set the agenda and can sign/veto bills that he helps push through. If you don't have the numbers in Congress, your agenda means squat and you are essentially powerless.

Due to the nature of the politics involved in the 2 party system, and the one party refusing to work with the other ... I stay consistent with blaming Congress, not the President, for any lack of progress. How any rationale person can do otherwise is beyond me.

 

[Benvolio]

Yes and Presidents do act outside the law, as BO granting amnesty to illegals. And the Supreme Court enacts new constitutional provisions. The Congress does anything it wants when it votes together, usually just by calling it interstate commerce.

 

[Stardreamer]

I think that mentality is a result of three things:

1) American public's complete ignorance to the functions and responsibilities of each of our three branches of government ... confusing the President's responsibilities with those of the Legislative Branch

2) .... which is a mentality furthered by the media in portraying the president as being capable of making his own laws

3) .... which #1 is also furthered by the candidates themselves acting as though they can bypass the Legislative Branch and make their own laws.

This is frankly insanity, and I have no idea why this idiotic charade/illusion still continues to this day.

The President only makes a difference when one party controls both Houses of Congress, and has a supermajority in the Senate. Only then does his influence really matter as he can help set the agenda and can sign/veto bills that he helps push through. If you don't have the numbers in Congress, your agenda means squat and you are essentially powerless.

Due to the nature of the politics involved in the 2 party system, and the one party refusing to work with the other ... I stay consistent with blaming Congress, not the President, for any lack of progress. How any rationale person can do otherwise is beyond me.

I disagree, if a president needs his party to control everything to get anything done he is not a very good leader.

 

[Kulindahr]

Due to the nature of the politics involved in the 2 party system, and the one party refusing to work with the other ... I stay consistent with blaming Congress, not the President, for any lack of progress. How any rationale person can do otherwise is beyond me.

Absolutely.

Ben Franklin was right: we could have had earthquakes, floods, epidemics, and dealt with those -- but we got cursed with a Congress.